Posted 5 years ago on March 30, 2012, 11:36 a.m. EST by Jflynn1964
(-206)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Arlene Holt Baker told The Daily Caller that it is “conservative, right-wing policies that are to blame” for Trayvon Martin‘s death.

Martin was a black teenager shot and killed by an Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer. The shooting, and the police department’s decision to not arrest the suspect, George Zimmerman, has caused an uproar in Florida and across the country. (RELATED: Full coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting)

“The same folks who want to kill workers’ rights in the work place are the same folks who want to kill voters’ votes … and now they are literally supporting legislation that is literally killing our children.”

Baker told TheDC that conservative policies, like Florida’s “stand your ground” law — which states that an individual has the right to defend himself if he feels that his life is in imminent danger — are to blame.

“When you look at whose behind it, you find that the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a very conservative think tank comprised of corporations and very conservative representatives at the state level are behind this.”

Judaism is a religion that has a closely related ethnicity. There is a distinct group of people that bred throughout the ages that can clearly be defined as Jewish. There are even different strains of the Jewish ethnicity, like Ashkenazi and Sephardi.

"The Jews (Hebrew: יְהוּדִים‎‎ ISO 259-3 Yhudim Israeli pronunciation [jehuˈdim]), also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and an ethnoreligious group, originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation. Converts to Judaism, whose status as Jews within the Jewish ethnos is equal to those born into it, have been absorbed into the Jewish people throughout the millennia."

there are 3 distinct races, mongoloid, caucasoid and negroid, there are sub groups and variations. a person can be jewish and be black or mongoloid or caucasion. jewish is a religion. saying jewish is a race is like saying that christian or shinto is a race.

In the opening scenes of Patricia Foulkrod's powerful documentary, we're introduced to a number of young soldiers who speak candidly and powerfully about the motivations that led them to join the military. As their stories unfold, we hear their surprised reactions to boot camp and combat training as they were taught to dehumanize their enemy, to "kill hadjis and ragheads."

"The Ground Truth" - is a documentary film, that should be watched by everyone who has a friend, relative or loved one who's served - or is about to serve - in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No, not at all. Reality is that blacks are 9x as likely to be killed by another black than by a white. Think too about how many blacks have been murdered by other blacks just since this case broke. The victimologists like Sharpton and they're friends in the media won't be bringing it up.

Me? I love hispanics. Talk about a people that have all of the right qualities - hard working, religious, family oriented, moral, ethical. This is one group that thrives in the US and makes it better. They get it.

Without a credible witnesses and having no evidence it wasn't then they could only detain you. It is against the law to arrest someone without probable cause but they can detain, it's the law and not the conservatives fault understand the law then you can run you're stupid liberal pussy mouth

You want to capture power and send it to Washington to remake society and business into some idealistic concept. All levers of power should emanate from you and your henchman. You want to take away freedom, liberty and any concept of individualism. Forget religion as we all bow to the powers in Washington with their administrations and acronyms.

Keep the minorities down by putting them in buckets and refusing to address what the realities are. The majority in America knows exactly what I am talking about regarding self defense and the perception of criminals.

You just don't want to see the elephant in the room. Who is going to get hired first - the clean cut person wearing a suit or the person with long hair, unshaven, tattoos and a hoodie? You tell me?

Yeah, it's called the dictatorship of the board of directors of the fortune five hundred, gov't is just their lap dog. Oh, my bad, I thought you guys were describing the status quo's dictatorship.

But since you are talking about "what ifs and woopty do's," Who would you rather be ruled by, the will of a few, or the laws of the many?

Remember though, those laws have to be enforceable on all. Unlike it is now, where once you break a mill you are no longer below the law but above it, the laws of the many seems like a better prospect than the whims of a few.

You mean the board of directors that is elected by the shareholders who invest their money in the company. Imagine that, people who have something at stake having the ability to vote and run the company. How dare they.

The government is there to do protect the people and provide services which an individual cannot do on their own, a la national defense. Everybody should be treated the same. Not one law for one person and another law from another.

Jus because you are mad and jealous that Steve Jobs has done better than you doesn't give you the right to steal from him.

You said just because i'm mad and jealous my interpretation of what gov't is tasked with doing is wrong. That is a tactic used to challenge my honor or make me feel guilty. It is a cheap, low down, dirty trick, and it is a little juvenile if you ask me.

Also, if you don't know the the wealthy get away with crimes that should be as deplorable to society as murder, then you ain't been paying attention. You probably had you mouth too firmly set on the bit you were chewing to notice. Your bad.

Everyone should be treated the same by lady justice, but because we are ruled by the wealthy, only we are judged by her tilted scales.

Easy because they abused their right to that money when they used it to buy my nation's democracy. You know you defend the rights of the wealthy like a terrible parent defends a spoiled child. Not only do you make excuses for them but you poke fun at their accusers. No wonder this nation has one foot in the grave, none of its people hold any of their industry leaders up to any type of standards. tisk, tisk.

If I'm building a doodad, or sitting in a cubicle, what the hell is it to you what I look like?

Answer: I don't care what you look like if you are the best in your class. But we are not talking about the 1% of kids who are the elite. They will always get hired. We are talking about the median and yes, for those kids to get hired, it matters what they look like, even if they are sitting in a cube.

You only want to hire the pretty slaves?

Answer: it has been proven that pretty people and slim people are hired over ugly people and fat people. That's reality.

You only want your customers served by those who meet your visual standards?

Answer: absolutely, there are professional standards as to how people should dress and personal cleanliness. There is a reams of data and studies on this especially in Japan. Much of it comes from the original Deming work on quality.

What are you talking about, objective thought? This is reality. At the end of the day you have to make payroll. Have you ever run a company and know what it's like to have the burden on your shoulders of paying hundred of people?

These studies aren't subjective, there numerous scientific works and empirical studies that prove these points.

Go live in la la land but keep your hands off our liberty. The world is moving towards more free market capitalism as the people are demanding it. When you see what happened in China yesterday that should tell you where its going when even they realize they have to become more free.

I'm not the one backing the dictators, you are. And now your man in DC is trying to tell the Supreme Court how to act. If George Bush had done that you would have been all over him. Why aren't you protesting how he killing many more people than Bush ever did in this war and doing it illegally?

I don't think Obama using the bully pulpit to remind the judges what an activist court looks like is anywhere near dictatorship. At least he ain't threatening to pack the court with a few more justices.

Do you believe anything he said is going to sway the decisions and philosophies of life long serving justices. I believe he did it more for the electorates ears than for the ears of any gov't official. He is pandering to his base and showing the electorate who to blame when ,and if, the justices rule against the law. Besides, I think it is healthy that the electorate see that activist judges don't just carry liberal credentials. As to whether it is unprecedented, I again refer you to the new deal era.

The police had no right to formally arrest him in this situation becaus sit was a clam of self defense, and since Zimmerman had cuts, other minor injuries they had no just cause to arrest him, only to detain him. So don't go spurting how it is the evil conservatives till ou get the whole story you left wing ass.

And the failure to prosecute him is the law's fault. And the encouragement of the behavior to shoot first is the fault of those ALEC and NRA shill legislators who pass "Stand Your Ground" laws, especially at a time when violent crime has been trending downward for 2 decades.

Trayvon Martin is to blame for his own death, rather than politely asking why Zimmerman was following him, and explaining why he was there, he chose to physically attack Zimmerman, and subsequently to bring about his own demise......

Civil discourse is a two way street, if you begin the conversation by punching people in the face, you deserve the medicine you are given for that action.....Period...

First of all, Trayvon Martin was 17 years old. Second of all, no one has any idea what conversation ensued between them. You can't possibly think the boy should have said: "Gee sir, may I ask why you are following me and why you have that gun in your hand?" How absurd.

He was 17 years old. What Trayvon should have done, in order to stay alive was suck-up and surrender to the lunatic following him with a gun. Yes. That's true. That might have given him a chance at life, but that might not have worked either. Zimmerman may have shot him anyway. And, how do we know Trayvon didn't actually try to reason with his stalker at first. This is something we'll never know. Trayvon's dead and cannot tell his side of the story.

We know the results of the tactics Treyvon used. So yes being more submissive might have resulted in living. Understanding, insight, education are some of the other areas that might help also.

if he would have understood that George was there to protect. Insight into a situation, middle of the night.
Education by his father about the areas crime problems and how they effect the protection of person and property.

No. Say it like it is Recycleman. What Trayvon's father failed to do was educate him about how, being a black boy, he needed to walk the streets in his own country with fear and worry because there are crazy racists, like Zimmerman, at every turn.

You make me nothing short of sick. George wasn't there to protect. He was their to bully and murder.

Yes, would you ever not teach your children things that would save their lives regardless of race.

That is based on this being a crime of race. They were both minorities.

And yes they should have taken more caution. I walk with fear because i understand crime is not blind. If i was white and walked down a street across the street from a black man. Who is more likely to be robbed.

Should a white man tell his kids that he is against crime but don't fear walking down the street where they have had multiple crimes recently.

So, you say, teach racism. "If i was white and walked down a street across the street from a black man. Who is more likely to be robbed." Do you understand that that is a racist comment? I'm not sure you do. Try to stop living in fear. Live with love, not fear.

he wasn't following him "with a gun" he was talking to 911 and reporting a suspicious person in his neighborhood......

the police report from that night listed 6 witnesses, and one of them was interviewed the next day and said he saw Martin attacking and beating Zimmerman on the ground and that he told them to stop and that he was going to call the police, he heard and saw Zimmerman scream for help....

That has all been refuted about the fight on the ground. What have you been smoking, slammers?

The 911 operator told Zimmerman NOT to follow Trayvon Martin, but he continued to do so as Trayvon told his girlfriend on his cell phone about how he was being stalked. Zimmerman was carrying a gun. So, Zimmerman was FOLLOWING Trayvon while carrying a GUN.

That is up for big time questioning. No one knows that for sure. What we do know is that Zimmerman was following Trayvon with a gun, told his girlfriend, was walking, trying to get away from Zimmerman, was afraid of him. Trayvon's dead. Shot. Zimmerman, well he seemed fine after the incident, was walking around, just fine, after his arrest.

Yup, that's right. You know me, making it up as I go along. I've heard the 911 tapes and the content of the preliminary reports made by a completely incompetent police department. Please. No. I don't want their sources. I'll wait for the FBI and for a trial. A trial is what really should happen here.

where do you think the FBI is going to get their information.....are they going to hire psychics?

they have the original investigation and witnesses.....

they also likely have the testimony from the Sanford Fire Department responder who treated Zimmerman at the scene, the medical records from the doctor he saw the day after, they have the testimony of 6 witnesses, including one eye-witness who saw and heard Zimmerman scream for help, and who told the two of them while fighting, to stop and that he was going to the police......

My guess is the grand jury will dismiss the case and there will be no trial....

Why would you assume the innocence of this Zimmerman character? This was a blundered case. The D.A. wanted Zimmerman arrested. In fact, he was arrested and mysteriously released. That you blame Trayvon for his own death really shows no compassion on your part, but we've discussed this lacking quality before. You are taking the wrong side, here. Let the facts come out in a trial.

no...the DA did not want Zimmerman arrested it was the lead investigator, and not for murder, for Homicide/Negligent Manslaughter/Unnecessary Killing to Prevent Unlawful Act.... Which means they understood Martin was committing an unlawful act....

and investigators don't issue charges, prosecutors do, and the prosecutor didn't think there was evidence to make the charge...

When the Grand Jury makes it's determination we'll know the parts we don't now know

If a guy was following me around in a car in my neighborhood, being polite would be the furthest thing from my mind. And if Trayvon was the guy in the car following you, it would be the furthest thing from your mind, too. You're trying to excuse vigilantism because you can't deal with the (OMG, news flash!) revelation that cops might falsify records to cover up an obvious crime. This is the most gullible and specious argument on this issue yet. Polite!

And of course, all this discussion about the particulars of this case obscure the larger point: the stand your ground law is dangerous and has already led to multiple homicides that went were never prosecuted. The right to self-defense is enshrined in law everywhere in the U.S. Stand your ground simply legalizes vigilantism. And the only story we'll ever know in circumstances like this is the one told by the survivor. You'll never know who the real criminal is but as long as it's black kids doing the dying, the establishment doesn't want to know. And neither do you.

"stand your ground" has NO bearing on this case......if you're on the ground being assaulted there is no "retreat", even the worst of the laws requiring a victim to flee would find such a situation to be justified in defending oneself....

Your assertion of vigilantism is nonsense.......Zimmerman wasn't a vigilante, he saw something suspicious (someone walking around in the middle of the night, between houses) and he called 911 to report it, and he tried to keep track of the location of the person while speaking to police on the phone.....

Nice insertion of "black kids" at the end, as though that is an issue in this situation.....how come there was no mention in the news of the 10 people killed in Chicago, including a 6 year old black girl, in a weekend following the Zimmerman/Martin incident? or any of the other interracial homicides that have occurred before and since, including one not too far from this incident where a black kid executed two british tourists while attempting to rob them at gunpoint?

YOU don't want to admit that the only time the race pimps care about black deaths is when a white person is involved and they can spin it, and whip up an emotional frenzy to appear relevant .....

The Duke Lacrosse incident and Towanna Brawley are two incidents where they were wrong, just like this one.....

Let's hope the illegal bounty on Zimmermans head by the Black Panthers doesn't end in his death before the grand jury finds him not guilty of any crime.....just like the prosecutor in FL did.......

Wrong. Zimmerman wouldn't have been as confident that he could pull the trigger without it.

"Your assertion of vigilantism is nonsense.......Zimmerman wasn't a vigilante..."

You don't know that or anything else about Zimmerman. Nice try.

"Nice insertion of "black kids" at the end, as though that is an issue in this situation"

Don't like it. Don't be it.

"YOU don't want to admit that the only time the race pimps care about black deaths is when a white person is involved and they can spin it, and whip up an emotional frenzy to appear relevant ....."

Nope. Racism is common in the general populace. We expect better from the police. You keep striking out, General Lee.

Towanna Brawley!? Talk about reaching!

The illegal bounty on Zimmerman's head was put out by the "New Black Panthers," who have been denounced by the NAACP and all other mainstream organizations. They have zero impact on American life, except for feeding the paranoid delusion of frightened white conservatives. Now let's see if you can find a way to work ACORN into the story.

PS - Violence against abortion doctors is on the rise, too. Methinks the reactionary right wing is feeling its oats a tad too much these days. Could it have something to do with a black man in the White House? Nah! That's just crazy talk!

I guess you're not looking then......who called 911 to report a suspicious person.....if Martin thought Zimmerman was a threat, why did he come back to where Zimmerman was, instead of just going home......in the "actual" full version of the 911 call, it is obvious that Zimmerman stopped following Martin when the dispatcher suggested he didn't need to, and was making arrangements to meet police at his vehicle when they arrived.....and according to the funeral director, there were no bruises on Martin, and yet Zimmerman had a broken nose and lacerations on the back of his head....and was treated by the SFD at the scene, why would he need treatment, if...as alleged by some, there were no injuries?

The preliminary police report mentions both the injuries and the treatment......

Forensics experts confirmed that the voice doing the screaming on the 911 tapes was Trayvon's. Several witnesses who came forward immediately have indicated that police weren't interested in their version of events because it didn't fit with their assumption of Zimmerman's innocence. And another, who came forward to CNN anonymously (out of fear of his ginned-up racist neighbors) said he saw Zimmerman walk away immediately after hearing the gunshots and there wasn't a scratch on him.

Is all that conclusive? No. Neither is any other evidence in the public sphere at this point. All we do know is that Zimmerman has a history of calling 911 on black people, that he disobeyed a direct, lawful order issued by a representative of law enforcement and that Trayvon Martin is dead. Your insistence that Zimmerman is innocent and Martin is guilty says a whole lot more about you than anything else.

no, they confirmed it was only a 48% chance that it was Zimmerman.....NOT that it was Trayvon Martin, and they used the 911 call as there "control" not a recorded scream track of Zimmerman.....

as for the injuries, there will be a witness/treatment trail, and that will come out of the grand jury.....the SFD person who treated Zimmerman at the scene, and the doctor who he went to the following day (according to accounts of the father and brother) will, likely both testify, or be deposed as to the nature of Zimmermans injuries...

there were not "gunshots" there was a single gunshot.....

He was NOT "ordered" by law enforcement.....he was told "we don't need you to do that".....NOT....."Do not do that", and there is evidence that he stopped following Martin when it was suggested it was not necessary by the 911 operator...who BTW is NOT an official authority as a representative of law enforcement.......

I "insist" nothing....I just put together the available evidence......IF Martin had continued to walk home after Zimmerman lost sight of him (as recorded in the 911 call) there would have been no incident, and had he explained why he was where he was instead of attacking Zimmerman he might be alive today.....

and again you add "black people"...I think you are a racist yourself, as you keep bringing up racial issues in a discussion that really has no bearing on race....

The anonymous CNN witness didn't see the details of the altercation and saw zimmerman from a distance walking toward him, and said he "appeared" to be hispanic...have you seen the pictures of zimmerman, he is CLEARLY hispanic, and he didn't claim there wasn't a scratch on him, he said he didn't "appear" hurt.......a broken nose would not "show" immediately with bruising.....and if he was walking toward the "witness" the back of his head would not be visable......

There was a witness interviewed by the local television station who claims to have SEEN Zimmerman and Martin fighting and SEEN Zimmerman cry for help and this witness told the men that they should stop fighting and that he was going to call 911.......

You need to catch up on this story before you draw all these assumptions....

If Martin is not charged for murder or, at the VERY least, first degree manslaughter, there will be riots in the street. The republican Party will be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT responsible for all damage that results, for all deaths, and for all the actions that are caused. The GOP needs to be destroyed, pure and simple.

Interesting you blame republicans and the GOP. On what basis do you blame them?

George Zimmerman, the man who fired the gun is a registered Democrat.
Jeff Triplett the Mayor of Sanford is a Democrat.
Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee is a registered Democrat.
The City Council is made up of Democrats.
The County is run by Democrats.
The area (FL 17th district) is represented in congress by Democrat Frederica Wilson.

So please explain how it is that the Republican's party is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT responsible.

"If Martin is not charged for murder or, at the VERY least, first degree manslaughter, there will be riots in the street. "

You have given us two outcomes when there are other possible outcomes. For example, there may not be riots in the street - there may be peaceful protests. There may be Florida (and other states) legislators taking a second look at the law that allowed Zimmerman to not be charged and revising it so that this tragedy never happens again.

"The republican Party will be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT responsible for all damage that results, for all deaths, and for all the actions that are caused."

Not quite accurate. You have offered up a Complex Cause - one The Logical Fallacies. The Republicans who served in the Florida Legislature in 2005 were not the only ones who voted for the Stand Your Ground law. In fact, NOT ONE Democrat voted against it. The Senate vote was actually 39 -0 (with one Democrat not present and therefore not voting).

Of the 15 states with similar laws, EIGHT of the bills were signed into law by Democrat Governors - these were:

Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana,

Jennifer Granholm of Michigan,

Brian Schweitzer of Montana,

John Lynch of New Hampshire,

Brad Henry of Oklahoma,

Phil Bredesen of Tennessee,

Joe Manchin of West Virginia

and

Janet Napolitano of Arizona – now the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security.

Further, should people decide to riot and cause property damage and deaths and any of the other "actions" that are caused, they will bear their own responsibility for choosing to become violent instead of peacefully protesting and demanding that the law be given a second look.

(A thank you to the person who posted the link to The Logical Fallacies - I intend on using it as much as possible : )

No, its completely true. We are a more partisan society than ever before. I think its because the media pumps us full of reasons to attack the other side.

I, personally, would love to see things called "compromises" take place in Congress, the courts, etc. The Republicans have never and are never going to do that in the foreseeable future, so I guess we just have to pick the side that matches up closest to what we want and hope they win.

Ah but I could argue that perhaps you have entered into another fallacy in the attempt to avoid the first one......

Slothful Induction....

The evidence is that Democratic Governors - who could have vetoed the bills in their states - did not do so.

The evidence is that Democratic Legislators - who could have voted NAY on the bill - did not do so.

You appear to seek the absolution of the Democrats because ALEC and the NRA drafted the Castle Doctrine and seek additional information on which legislator submitted the bill to the body.

The proper conclusion is that the Democrats are equally as responsible for the Stand Your Ground laws across the nation as the Republicans are - yet you deny their responsibility.....

: )

Oh, and by the by, ALEC admitted to drafting the Castle Doctrine which is included in the Florida Law as well as in all the other states - the Florida Legislature which included all the Democrats who voted for it (39 of them in the Florida Senate) broadened the language on their own..........making it so that "retreat" is not needed before one defends oneself....

But even the two sponsors of the Florida Law say that George Zimmerman should NOT be let go based upon the law - IF in fact he pursued Martin, he is not protected by the Stand Your Ground - even in its "no need to retreat" aspect....

"BAXLEY: Well, simply because if you carefully read the statute, which most of the critics have not, and read the legislative analysis, there's nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue or confront other people. If anything, this law would have protected the victim in this case; it could have."

The evidence is that Democratic Governors - who could have vetoed the bills in their states - did not do so.

The evidence is that Democratic Legislators - who could have voted NAY on the bill - did not do so.

The distraction is ...you don't know who submitted the state bills therefore it must be true that the Democrats are not responsible. The fact that you don't know who sponsored the state bills does not make the fact that Janet Napolitano - now in the Obama Administration - and other Democratic Governors and state legislators did not veto/vote nay.

Castle Doctrine - 3. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place [other than their dwelling, residence, or vehicle] where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Florida's version:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Again, Jeb Bush and the two co-sponsors of the Florida Law have all said that Zimmerman should NOT be protected under this law if he pursued or confronted Martin.

What might be of note, yet is missing info in the Democratic signings, is how and who brought the bill up in the first place.

Where is the part where you asked me to provide you that information?

Here is a question for you....why can you not look for that information on your own? Are you incapable of real fact finding? Are you concerned that it might not support your opinion that the Democratic Governors who signed the bills and did not veto them and the Democratic Legislators who vote AYE instead of NAY might not be so innocent of wrong doing?

Or perhaps you mean this....

[-] 1 points by shooz (5412) 13 hours ago

Nor do you even attempt to explain the libe(R)tarian connection with ALEC.

Again, where is the part where you ask me to supply this information for you? I even provided a link to the folks who are a part of ALEC to aid you in your quest for information on that alleged Libertarian connection to ALEC. Are you unable to support your own argument/position? You want me to do it for you?

As already pointed out, you do not avoid "fallacy" by requesting more and more information - you are again....using the "fallacy of distraction".

"The republican Party will be ONE HUNDRED PERCENT responsible for all damage that results, for all deaths, and for all the actions that are caused. The GOP needs to be destroyed, pure and simple."

I pointed out the following: The Republicans who served in the Florida Legislature in 2005 were not the only ones who voted for the Stand Your Ground law. In fact, NOT ONE Democrat voted against it. The Senate vote was actually 39 -0 (with one Democrat not present and therefore not voting).

Of the 15 states with similar laws, EIGHT of the bills were signed into law by Democrat Governors - these were:

Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana,

Jennifer Granholm of Michigan,

Brian Schweitzer of Montana,

John Lynch of New Hampshire,

Brad Henry of Oklahoma,

Phil Bredesen of Tennessee,

Joe Manchin of West Virginia

and

Janet Napolitano of Arizona – now the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security.

Therefore, first statement (that the Republicans were 100% responsible) was shown to be false by the presentation of facts.

To which you responded in part "I blame it on ALEC and the NRA." Note that you did not qualify your own argument. I followed that by pointing out the fallacy in your position. To which you responded with another fallacy...because you completely disregarded the fact that Democrats had voted for the laws and/or signed them. To which you responded with yet another fallacy - an attempt to distract by then bringing in the alleged "libertarian" connection to ALEC.

I'm just asking YOU to qualify your argument.
You're wiggling around trying to avoid it.
I still stand by my simple yet honest statement.
ALEC and the NRA are responsible for this ill thought law.
Good for you!!!

Basing an unexpressed opinion, based on incomplete information!
There is no alleged libe(R)tarian connection to ALEC, the connection is quite real.
You just "choose" to ignore it.

[-] 1 points by shooz (5433) 22 hours ago --- Now, there is a question in this one but it questions a question that - as you can see from the above - was never asked in the first place...........

Practically every CEO and backer of ALEC, will tell you they have libe(R)tarian leanings, no matter which of the two parties they appear to back.
Neoliberal economics is libe(R)tarian at it's core.
Neoliberal economic theory is why we are where we are.

Now that that is out of the way, would you please provide the DATA I originally asked for, instead of continually changing the subject?

[-] 2 points by shooz (5433) 4 hours ago ----as already established there was no question "asked in the first place".....so just who is it who might be lying here?

You changed the subject several times, ignored my last post, typed a lot and still managed to avoid the question I asked in the first place.
Indeed, you lied about the question I asked.
Plus your response avoided pointing out that the law was written by ALEC, although you did manage to mention Obama.
I guess you're just not that concerned.

Now, let's take a look at your accusations..........

a) "avoided answering the question first asked ----as already established above there was no question "asked in the first place".....

b) "lied about the question" -----there was no original question therefore the second question - which implied there was a first question when there was in fact none - was irrelevant.

c) ... " avoided pointing out that the law was written by ALEC....." Sorry, but you are wrong as evidenced below.....

[-] 0 points by Concerned (454) 1 day ago

Castle Doctrine - 3. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place [other than their dwelling, residence, or vehicle] where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Florida's version:

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Let's be clear here. You want me to do your research for you. You'd like for me to find the sponsors of every single Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground Law....

a) because you are unwilling or unable to do your own research and rely on others to help you form your opinion on issues.

b) because you seek to absolve any Democratic Governor who refused to veto these laws and to absolve any Democratic Legislator who did not vote NAY on these bills.

I'm not doing your research for you because you can't accept the fact that these laws may have had Democratic support because of actual circumstances at the state levels.

I will however give a taste of what I have found out about Arizona's stand your ground law - the one signed into law by Janet Napolitano - President Obama's Home Security head from an article written in 2006 at the time it became law.

""The "Burden of Proof" amendment addresses a truly grave situation facing any Arizonan who is forced to act in self-defense. Because of a change to the self-defense laws that was passed with little fanfare in 1997, citizens who act in self-defense are currently presumed guilty until they prove their innocence in court. This defies the age-old principle of "innocent until proven guilty." This leaves good citizens vulnerable to wrongful prosecution and conviction for simply defending themselves and their loved ones from violence. Arizona is one of only two states in the country that places the burden of proof in self-defense cases on the citizen instead of the state. This is simply wrong and must be corrected this year before more abuses occur."

The Law was put into place with an emergency clause to go into affect immediately because of the trial of Harold Fish.

How is the GOP responsible for passing a law that makes it legal for people with no training, no law enforcement powers and no danger or legitimate justification of self-defense to commit murder? You're kidding, right?

Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

We already had a right to self-defense. Two instances that I know of would already qualify as "cruel and unusual punishment:" a robber was chased down and stabbed to death while fleeing and two burglars were shot dead by the next door neighbor. Both killers were not charged as a result of this law. Would you be in favor of the death penalty for petty theft? If so, then this law is for you. But if you think it's a mistake to allow ignorant slobs to be judge, jury and executioner, you should start waking up real fast. Any one of us could be next.

If the shoe fits. But I was actually talking about anyone who thinks they can be judge, jury and executioner because the law allows it. It doesn't matter if a crime is being committed or anything. Two people arrive at the same spot on Earth with no other witnesses. One walks away. The only story we get is the survivor's. So even if the survivor was the original criminal, he gets off scott free due to this law. That's the issue. We already have the right to protect ourselves. This gives us the right to murder with impunity, as long as we can scrub the scene well enough. You could be the dead guy next. And the murderer will be protected by this law. You comfortable with that?

This law strengthens a defenders right to protect himself. Since the strengthening of this law, the criminal knows that when he attacks somebody there will be strong retribution and response. This should deter further criminal activity.

In your case, yes the criminal could get away with it. But the next time he tries it he probably won't because he will come up against somebody who responds. Either way this criminal will attack until he is stopped.

"In your case, yes the criminal could get away with it. But the next time he tries it he probably won't because he will come up against somebody who responds."

Ah, the tough guy talk rears its ugly head. I suppose it makes you feel like a big man to suggest I can't or won't defend myself. But I wouldn't have survived this long in the densest city in America without a few skills, creampuff. Anyone can talk tough and get himself killed. I wish I knew your real name, just to keep an eye on the obits. ;-)

So this imaginary criminal comes upon you, in all your take-no-prisoners glory and you think, piece of cake. This guy is going down! But you forgot about his buddy in the parked car coming up behind you or his kid who comes around your house a few years later and kills you and your entire family in your sleep. Perhaps you didn't realize he was an undercover cop and he kills you first. You must think police training is just a load of crap because you already know how to be cop all by your lonesome.

So, in answer to your previous question, I guess, when I said "ignorant slob," I was talking about people like you.

I am not suggesting you, personally, won't defend yourself. I would assume you would. And that's the point if the criminal knows that there will be a response, then he will be less likely to attack.

Your imaginary scenario could happen right now without tougher defense laws so what's the point?

I see that you have a lot of respect for the police by using the slang term "cop" Where did you go to law school?

You can call me names if that's what you want - that seems to be de rigueur here - but that doesn't change thee fact that the majority of Americans believe in the right to defend themselves against criminals.

My name is real, too, so we're on even ground. Your phrasing made the implication but if you didn't intend it, then I withdraw my remark. I would suggest you be a tad more careful in sentence construction if you didn't really mean what you implied. I'm not being "grammar cop," just saying I read it that way and I don't think it's my fault.

Anyway, what's wrong with "cop?" Cops call themselves cops.

Any imaginary scenario can happen right now, the point is the incentive. This law gives people cover for the intention of committing a crime. The criminal now knows that he can get away clean if there are no other witnesses around. And who spends more time thinking of ways to avoid witnesses, the average law-abiding citizen or the average criminal? You're assuming that the "good guy" will always come out on top. That is a dangerous way to think.

I don't think its based on racial fears, its based on defending yourself and keeping criminals out of your area and home. There is nothing wrong with that.

Obama should be the one telling his people to stop killing each other and stay in school. Stop getting tattoos and take off the hoodies and they will be able to get jobs. But he won't do that, why not? How many people black kids have died in Oakland YTD?

People already had that right. THese laws don't add anything to that right. they only act to make sure that people do not feel compelled to retreat first, but have the choice of shooting first without repercussions. All decency and respect for human life is thrown out the window by these new abominations. And they were inspired by nothing that corresponds to reality: the reality is that violent crime has been decreasing, and were doing so for two decades BEFORE these laws were passed.

They were passed because ALEC and the NRA stoked racist fears of Blacks and especially Hispanics (most specifically Mexican immigrants). THose fears meant more sales for guns, and these laws made getting guns more attractive.

Whenever there is a terrible shooting incident, right wingers and politicians talk about everything except whether the tragedy could have been avoided if the gunman had not been allowed to carry a firearm. Common sense regulation and reasonable laws regarding self defense are never talked about. Hoodies become the issue. It is misdirection to the extreme, and the consequences are more tragic shootings.

The law just strengthens the right to self defense. There are many people who are concerned about their safety. Why do you think so many people live in gated communities?

I can't comment on this shooting specifically since I don't know all the facts. But I do know that the hoodie issue is absolutely ridiculous. I am scared when I see somebody with a hoodie on or a tattoo. And I would bet that most of America agrees with me.

I have no idea why some people live in gated communities. Some enjoy being separate for ordinary people, some have unreasoned fears, some just found nice houses there. There are probably a whole host of reasons, but without a poll or survey, neither you nor I know the answer: only conjecture and myth, which is all you right wing assholes ever come up with.

You get scared when you see Angelina Jolie? She's got lots of tattoos. BUt your infantile fears of certain fashions have nothing to do with these laws. They did not strengthen self defense laws: they were already as strong as they needed to be for the purpose of self defense. Violent crime has been going DOWN FOR TWO DECADES!!!!!!!!!! Previous laws did nothing to curtail self defense. They discouraged people from not looking for solutions other than gunplay in order to defend oneself, and did not restrict, in any way, the use of lethal force if there was no other reasonable or alternative. Even in the presence of alternatives, if the mere PERCEPTION of a lack of one was operating, lethal force was still permitted. All these new laws do is create a contempt for human life and the fucking cowboy vigilante attitude of shoot first, ask questions (about any alternatives) later, if ever.

More people have been working?
Really? Ever hear of the recession? Ever hear of falling wages since Reagan? You just call the gas you fart truth, but it doesn't stink less to the rest of the world, who actually value truth.
People live in gated communities because of falling crime? Really? Prove it. Show some real data instead of declaring fact-free conjecture.
You get invective hurled at you because you are a liar, a racist, an idiot, and value money and power above human life.
You are a worthless piece of shit. You see that every time you look in the mirror. The breath you exhale pollutes the world. No vulgarity can come close to matching the obscenity is that is you. Go shoot yourself in defense of the universe.

Yeah, you are a real believe in human values. Keep it up. You have no idea what you are talking about. Poverty is only up during the recession and your man is clueless in trying to fix it.

Thank goodness, people don't believe this socialistic nonsense you speak of. Your man needs to go back and read the constitution.

By the way if you are so smart, how come you are on this board and not making policy?

Don't you dare spit your nonsense about human values to me. You spew out your vulgar speech and your hatred is obvious. Take you hunger for power and go home. You want to back your corrupt system and take away our liberties. Sorry, no way. Go back your corrupt union leaders and inept teachers. All they want to do is stay on the dole.

People live in gated communities because they are concerned about violence. That's the point.

Yes, I know that violence has been declining. It's because more people have been working due to free market policies. Reagan started it. You should give him credit.

Really? Ever hear of the recession? Ever hear of falling wages since Reagan? You just call the gas you fart truth, but it doesn't stink less to the rest of the world, who actually value truth.

People live in gated communities because of falling crime? Really? Prove it. Show some real data instead of declaring fact-free conjecture.

You get invective hurled at you because you are a liar, a racist, an idiot, and value money and power above human life.

You are a worthless piece of shit. You see that every time you look in the mirror. The breath you exhale pollutes the world. No vulgarity can come close to matching the obscenity is that is you. Go shoot yourself in defense of the universe.

I don't think its based on racial fears, its based on defending yourself and keeping criminals out of your area and home. There is nothing wrong with that.

Obama should be the one telling his people to stop killing each other and stay in school. Stop getting tattoos and take off the hoodies and they will be able to get jobs. But he won't do that, why not? How many people black kids have died in Oakland YTD?
↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

He is the President and his comments matter and are heard by many. He is the one attempting to make a political issue out of this, when he should be relying on the justice department and local police force.

I'm not racist. This is the problem, you don't want to talk about reality. The reality is there is a tremendous amount of black on black crime, an above amount of incarceration rate and an above average unemployment rate in black communities. That's real.

You can't get a job with a tattoo, wearing a hoodie, and a gangster attitude. This isn't a fairyland, that's real.

I know you believe the shit you write,that's the problem. Psychosis like yours and other Leftist Drones is only consumed and digested through the indoctrination of Academe and the Left that controls it.

That's right, the government will decide if convicted felons, schizophrenics and psychotics, and people on the terrorism watch list should own guns or not. They also get to decide if people can be allowed to own and use rocket propelled grenades, Stinger missiles, tanks, and dirty nuclear bombs. After all, the second amendment says "arms" not simply semi-automatic hollow armor piercing round filled hunting Ouzies.. How very unreasonable!

No, you moron, that's exactly what I mean. The lack of background checks insures that everyone I cited has legal access to weapons. The Bradey law that banned 33 round semi-automatic clips was allowed to lapse. ANd terrorist watch listed people can still, by law, get guns. The 2nd Amendment provides no limits on arms.

ALL of these issues have been, at one time or another, been defended by the NRA, who pressured Congress in to letting the Brady law lapse, fought hollow points in the courts (and won!) have consistently ooposed background checks and made sure they needn't be applied at gun shows, and refuse to allow any limits on the types of weapons to be protected with fanatical absolutism. "They are for hunting. They are for self defense" Bullshit.

They helped co-author, along with ALEC, these monstrous "stand Your Ground" laws that create an atmosphere of acceptable vigilantism. And their motivations have to do with profits, not constitutional protections.

It is disgusting. And you right winger morons just go right along, buying into the myths that these SYG laws are necessary when violent crime is going DOWN (and has been for 2 DECADES), but appeals to racial fears and xenophobia. You have been completely hoodwinked by what these corporations are telling you and are so stupid as to believe that they aren't selling you a bill of absolutist "constitutional" goods exclusively for the sake of their bottom line.